Environmental Factors to Promote the Use of a
Public Park in Adults
Fatores ambientais que estimulam o uso de um parque público em adultos
AUTHOR’SAlfredo Leopoldo Enrique Messenger Valenzuela1
Ana Carolina Belther Santos1 Marcelo Dutra Della Justina1 Thuany Stahelin Kuhn2 Joris Pazin2
Cassiano Ricardo Rech1
1 Federal University of Santa Catarina. Department of Physical Education, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
2 Santa Catarina State University. Department of Physical Education, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
CORRESPONDING
Alfredo Leopoldo Enrique Messenger Valenzuela
alfredomessenger@gmail.com
Rodovia Amaro Antônio Vieira, 189 – apto.106, Itacorubi, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil. CEP: 88034-101. DOI
10.12820/rbafs.23e0049
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to describe environmental factors that motivate public park use according to users’ sociodemographic characteristics. A cross-sectional study was carried out in 2014/2015 in a park in the city of Florianopolis, Brazil. A face-to-face interview was performed, including sociode-mographic data and environmental factors that stimulate park use. Descriptive analysis, chi-square and Z-tests were used to compare the proportions between groups, adopting a significance level of p < 0,05. The sample included 377 park users, aged 18 years or older (59.7% women). The archi-tectural beauty of structures, geographic location, technological factors, normative policies, values and attitudes were reported as the main factors that motivate park use (p < 0.05). The presence of equipment and public programs in parks were more frequently mentioned as motivational factors for park use among women than men (p > 0.05). Architectural structures and notice boards and posters had higher proportions among users who had an elementary and high school level (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the existing environmental factors seem to have an impact on the motivation for park use, changing according to users’ sociodemographic aspects.
Keywords: Environment; Urban parks; Demographic data; Leisure activities. RESUMO
O objetivo deste estudo foi descrever os fatores ambientais que estimulam o uso de um parque público de acor-do com as características sociodemográficas acor-dos frequentaacor-dores. Foi realizaacor-do um estuacor-do transversal em um parque público de Florianópolis, em 2014/2015. Foi aplicada uma entrevista face-a-face sobre característi-cas sociodemográficaracterísti-cas e sobre fatores ambientais que podem estimular o uso do parque. Utilizou-se a análise descritiva e os testes Qui-quadrado e teste Z para comparar as proporções entre grupos, adotando-se um nível de significância de p < 0,05. Participaram do estudo 377 frequentadores do parque (59,7% mulheres), com 18 ou mais anos de idade. A beleza, localização geográfica, fatores tecnológicos, arquitetônicos, políticas nor-mativas, valores e atitudes foram os fatores ambientais mais relatados como os que estimulam o uso do parque (p < 0,05). A presença de equipamentos e programas públicos no parque foram os fatores mais relatados entre mulheres, quando comparado aos homens (p > 0,05). A beleza arquitetônica das estruturas e a presença de cartazes/quadros informativos foram os fatores com motivadores mais relatados entre aqueles com ensino fundamental e médio (p < 0,05). Os fatores ambientais existentes parecem ter impacto na motivação para o uso do parque e variam de acordo com as variáveis sociodemográficas dos frequentadores.
Palavras-chave: Ambiente; Parques urbanos; Dados demográficos; Atividade de lazer.
Introduction
Physical inactivity currently accounts for nearly 10% of the main non-communicable chronic diseases worl-dwide1. This is partly due to the increase in individuals’
involvement in activities requiring less energy expendi-ture, such as watching TV and sitting in the workplace for long periods of time2,3 or during transport4. One
of the strategies used to reduce physical inactivity has been the creation and maintenance of public open spa-ces such as squares and public parks5,6.
This recommendation is based on the positive re-lationship between greater access to public spaces and better health indicators7,8. Individuals who live near
parks are more physically active and visit these locations more frequently9. Thus, promoting the use of such
loca-tions can contribute to the increase in physical activity levels10. On the other hand, studies performed in
de-veloped countries have pointed out that greater use of public open spaces is associated with the characteristics of locations, such as distance from home and amount,
Este obra está licenciado com uma Licença
Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-CompartilhaIgual 4.0 Internacional.
diversity and quality of pieces of equipment11-13.
In this sense, identifying the barriers and facilitators for the use of public open spaces can be an important tool to promote their use. Barriers can be categorized as behavior-inhibiting factors, while attractive factors are facilitators for the use of public open spaces. A study performed in a public park in the city of Curiti-ba, Southern Brazil, showed that climatic conditions such as rain and cold are relevant barriers to park use, especially for individuals who are older and have a low-er income14. Additionally, excess body weight can be
an important barrier to one’s involvement in physical activities in public parks. This is an important fact, as the prevalence of overweight in adults is higher than 50%15. Moreover, individuals who visit open spaces
tend to have lower body mass index values16. On the
other hand, the aesthetical factor, geographic location, presence of technological and architectural items, nor-mative policies, values and attitudes, accessibility and closeness to home can be important environmental fa-cilitators for park use17–19.
Thus, identifying the conditions associated with the environment of public open spaces that motivate in-dividuals to visit these locations will enable managers, urban planners and Physical Education professionals to offer more possibilities of use of such spaces as envi-ronments for physical activity promotion. Additionally, it is necessary to broaden the debate on the differences in public park users’ perception of socio-demographic characteristics such as sex, age group and level of ed-ucation. This is because, among other things, access to public open spaces is still low and restricted to medi-um- and high-income locations20, especially in Brazil.
Therefore, the present study aimed to describe environ-mental factors that promote public park use in the city of Florianópolis, Southern Brazil, according to users’ socio demographic characteristics.
Methods
An descriptive cross-sectional study was performed in a public park in the city of Florianópolis, capital of Santa Catarina state, in Southern Brazil. This city has an estimated population of 485,838 individuals and a Human Development Index (HDI) of 0.84721. All
procedures performed in this study were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Santa Catarina State University (number 105228/2014).
Aiming to perform this study, Parque de Coque-iros was the location purposefully selected, as this is
the only public park on the city’s continental area with physical infrastructure and equipment for exercises and leisure programs. This park is located in the Coquei-ros district and it was built by the Society of Friends of Coqueiros District between 1999 and 2000. Cur-rently, this park is managed by the Florianópolis City Hall22 and the population has an average income of
R$ 5,376.00 (US$ 1,448.00)22. An analysis performed
through systematic observation revealed that this loca-tion includes 11 pieces of equipment for physical activ-ity practice with good qualactiv-ity20.
The study population was comprised of all park us-ers who were found in this location on the collection days. The sample selection process was intentional and by convenience. In all, 457 users aged more than 18 years were approached and the research objectives clar-ified to them. Of these, 395 (86.43%) accepted to par-ticipate. The analysis of statistical power of the sample size was performed “post hoc”, showing that the final sample (377 individuals after losses) showed a power of 0.90 for the chi-square test, an alpha value of 0.05 and an effect size of 0.12 (Software G*Power 3.1.9.3).
Questionnaires were applied between August and October 2014 and between March and April 2015, totaling 50 visits to the park with collections on two weekdays and one weekend day, from 9:00am to 12:00pm and from 2:00pm to 5:00pm.
Environmental factors that promote park use were assessed through a scale of self-perception of the envi-ronment for physical activity practice, which has been validated for studies in Brazil23 and applied to similar
research in this country14,24. This scale is comprised of
four factors, distributed into 16 indicators. Geograph-ical factors were grouped according to the following indicators: rainfall in the park, air pollution in the park, geographic beauty of the park, geographic location of the park and walking/running tracks in the park. Tech-nological/architectural factors were as follows: availa-ble equipment, parking area in the park and the archi-tectural beauty of structures.
Moreover, the following political-normative factors were included: public physical activity programs in the park, notice boards/posters about physical activity in the park, emergency services in the park, and public safety services and traffic regulations in the nearby area. Finally, factors, values and attitudes are comprised of the following indicators: users’ behavior observed in the park, support and encouragement from friends, and value attributed to the park by the community.
The instrument questions were assessed with the Likert scale of five points as follows: 1) greatly inhibits; 2) inhibits; 3) neither inhibits nor encourages; 4) en-courages; and 5) greatly encourages. For the operation-alization in the descriptive analyses and analyses of as-sociation with socio-demographic characteristics, these categories were dichotomized: encourages (encourages + greatly encourages) and does not encourage (greatly inhibits, inhibits, and neither inhibits nor encourages).
In addition, users reported sex (male and female), age (years), level of education (school years), body weight (kg) and height (cm). Age was categorized into two levels (adults ≤ 39 years; ≥ 40 years), school years were grouped into two categories (primary and/or sec-ondary education; higher education). Body mass index (BMI) was calculated with the weight and height vari-ables and individuals were thus classified: underweight (BMI < 18.4 kg/m2),normal (BMI < 25 kg/m2),
over-weight (IMC ≥ 25 kg/m2) or obese (IMC ≥ 30 kg/
m2)25. For the BMI to be shown, the classification was
dichotomized into normal BMI (underweight + nor-mal) and overweight (overweight + obesity). Addition-ally, time of transport from home to park in minutes was also reported and subsequently categorized (< 10 minutes; ≥ 10 minutes). Finally, participants answered
whether they practiced regular physical activities in the park or not (yes; no).
Absolute and relative frequencies were used to de-scribe the sample in the data analysis. Chi-square test was employed to compare the proportions according to socio-demographic variables (sex, age group and level of education). The comparison of proportions between groups of socio-demographic variables in the total sample was performed with the Z-test of proportions. SPSS®, version 25.0, and MedCalc®, version 18.2.1, were
used in the analyses, adopting a significance level of 5%.
Results
Among all 395 participants in the present study, 18 questionnaires were not complete and, as a result, were excluded from the analysis. Of all 377 users included (59.7% women; mean age of 37.01 ± 12.44 years), the majority were aged between 18 and 39 years (66.3%), had complete higher education (56.9%) and a positive health perception (83.8%), lived more than 10 minu-tes away from park (60.6%) and performed physical activity in the park (61.7%). Regarding sex, there was a predominance of young women (< 40 years) with a normal BMI (p < 0.05). The other characteristics did not differ between sexes (Table 1).
Table 1 – Sample characteristics of users of a public park in Florianópolis, Brazil, 2014/2015 (n = 377).
Variable Total Male Female p
n % n % n % Total sample 377 100.0 152 40.3 225 59.7 Age range 0.035 18 - 39 years 242 66.3 85 59.4 157 70.7 ≥ 40 years 123 33.7 58 40.6 65 29.3 Level of education 0.238
Primary and/or secondary education 162 43.1 59 39.1 103 45.8
Higher education 214 56.9 92 60.9 122 54.2 BMI classification 0.001 Normala 180 49.5 50 34,0 130 59.9 Overweight 184 50.5 97 66.0 87 40.1 Health perception 0.210 Excellent/good 316 83.8 136 89.5 180 80.0 Fair/poor 61 16.2 16 10.5 45 20.0
Travel time to the park 0.897
< 10 minutes 143 39.4 59 40.1 84 38.9
≥ 10 minutes 220 60.6 88 59.9 132 61.1
Performed PA in the park 0.071
Yes 232 61.7 102 67.5 130 57.8
No 144 38.3 49 32.5 95 42.2
Among the environmental factors reported as moti-vators for park use, the following stood out: geograph-ical aspects (geographic location and beauty), archi-tectural-technological aspects (presence of walking/ running tracks, equipment and architectural beauty of structures), values and attitudes (user behavior, support and encouragement from friends, and value attributed to the park). The least reported factors as promoters of park use were rainfall, perception of lack of safety, and lack of emergency services in the park (p < 0.05) – Table 2.
In the stratified analysis, according to the socio-de-mographic variables (Figure 1), the presence of availa-ble equipment and public programs in the park was a factor that encouraged park use, with a higher frequen-cy among women when compared to men (p < 0.05). Additionally, users with a primary/secondary education level reported factors such as the architectural beauty of structures and notice boards/posters more frequent-ly, when compared to those with higher education (p < 0.05). Rainfall was less frequently reported as an en-couraging factor for park use among those with higher education, when compared to others with a lower level of education (97.7% versus 92.0%; p < 0.05).
Discussion
The results of the present study indicate that geogra-phic, technological and architectural, and political--normative factors, values and attitudes are important to promote public park use. Moreover, the presence of equipment and public programs for physical activity in the park were important motivational factors among women, whereas the architectural beauty of the park was associated with greater encouragement for use among those with a lower level of education. These re-sults emphasize the importance of maintaining attrac-tion factors to increase public park use. Moreover, the presence of certain environmental factors that promo-te park use was found to be important for population subgroups such as women and individuals with a lower level of education.
The majority of users were women. This result is in agreement with another study25 performed in the same
public park, aimed at identifying the mediators for phys-ical activity practice during leisure time among park us-ers, with women being more representative. In contrast, certain studies14,24 showed that men predominated. The
fact that women were more prevalent in Coqueiros
Table 2 – Percentage of perceived indicators that do not stimulate and indicators that stimulate public park use in adults, 2014/2015 (n = 377).
Factor / Indicator Does not stimulate Stimulates p
n % n %
Geographic
Incidence of rainfall in the park 359 95.2 18 4.8 < 0.001
Air pollution in the park 226 59.9 151 40.2 < 0.001
Geographic beauty of the park 35 9.3 342 90.7 < 0.001
Geographic location of the park 34 9.0 343 91.0 < 0.001
Architectural-technological
Presence of walking/running tracks 84 22.3 293 77.7 < 0.001
Available equipment (seats, bars) 151 40.3 225 59.8 < 0.001
Parking area in the park 184 49.1 191 50.9 0.717
Architectural beauty of the park 144 38.2 233 61.8 < 0.001
Political-normative
Public program for PA in the park 193 51.3 183 48.7 0.608
Posters/ notice boards about PA in the park 249 66.2 127 33.8 < 0.001
Emergency care service in the park 279 74.2 97 25.8 < 0.001
Public safety services near the park 279 74.0 98 26.0 < 0.001
Traffic rules in the vicinity 222 58.9 155 41.1 < 0.001
Values and attitudes
Observed behavior of users in the park 135 35.9 241 64.1 < 0.001 Support and encouragement from friends 120 31.9 256 68.1 < 0.001 Value assigned to the park by the community 78 21.0 294 79.0 < 0.001
park could be a particular characteristic of this location, where they feel more encouraged to use it. Regarding level of education, the data showed that, regardless of sex, the majority of users had a higher education level, a fact that is in agreement with the literature24.
Geographic location and beauty of park were con-sidered as motivational factors for park use. This result is similar to what has been found in the literature19.
Greater access to parks tends to stimulate the use of such spaces, enabling them to become good strategies for physical activity promotion. Additionally, the aes-thetics and beauty of the locations have also been a
variable associated with greater park use and higher physical activity level14. These results emphasize the
need to increase access to and maintenance of public parks, as location and beauty are relevant aspects that encourage individuals to use such spaces.
Another important result points out that the pres-ence of architectural structures in the park, such as walking/running tracks and equipment, represent factors that encourage park use in the study sample. Through a telephone survey, another study identified that, the higher the number of pieces of equipment available for physical activity, the greater the chance of
Figure 1 – Environmental factors associated with the motivation for public park use in Florianopolis, according to sociodemographic varia-bles. Florianopolis, Brazil, 2014/2015 (n = 377).
Legend: a) Association between “equipment available in the park” and sex (male and female); p < 0.05. b) Association between “public pro-grams for physical activity in the park” and sex (male and female); p < 0.05. c) Association between “rainfall in the park” and level of education (primary or secondary education and higher education); p < 0.05. d) Association between “architectural beauty of structures” and education (primary or secondary education and higher education); p < 0.05. e) Association between “posters / notice boards about physical activity in the park” and education (primary or secondary education and higher education); p <0 .05.
such locations being used26. Thus, the more pieces of
equipment for physical activity available, the more peo-ple will feel encouraged to go to a park, a factor that can be decisive for public health, due to the higher number of individuals changing their daily life habits positively. The value attributed to the location and support and encouragement of friends were also important fac-tors to promote park use. Moreover, the lack of a com-panion was considered to be one of the main perceived barriers to physical activity practice in other studies24.
Considering the area of physical activity promotion, interventions aimed at enabling social interactions tend to be more successful, which indicates the im-portance of social support for physical activity practice and, consequently, for park use.
The presence of traffic rules in the vicinity of the park was also reported as a factor promoting public park use. similar results were found in the literature14.
In contrast, when perceiving lack of safety and emer-gency services, users do not feel encouraged to use a park. These same indicators have also been observed in other studies27,28. Climatic conditions, especially
rainfall, were also considered to be an aspect that dis-courages park use. This result corroborates those found in the literature28,29. Park use was associated with
ade-quate climatic conditions, which shows the need to pay attention to this issue. Florianópolis has well-defined seasons and rainfall is heavy during certain times of the year. In this sense, park users are affected by climatic conditions. Thus, enabling sheltered environments in public parks for physical activity practice on rainy days is one way to remedy this inhibiting factor.
The present study showed some limitations. One of them is the intentional selection method with an unintentional selection. This fact could have led to selection bias, as individuals who accepted to partic-ipate in this study were those more motivated to use the park. Additionally, stratified analyses by age and level of education created a sample with a low num-ber of participants, thus resulting in broad categories. Therefore, future studies should include larger samples, aiming to stratify more categories with such influence. Finally, the data from the present study are limited to Coqueiros park users. Consequently, the results cannot be generalized to other studies.
In conclusion, the environmental factors that en-courage public park use more frequently reported by users were as follows: presence and maintenance of adequate structures for physical activity, emergency
services, safety, notice boards and posters, architectural beauty of structures, and public programs in the park aimed at encouraging its use. Additionally, some moti-vational factors stood out among female users and those with a higher education level. These results emphasize the need for professionals, public managers and urban planners to analyze such aspects when the objective is to promote park use. In this sense, open public spaces showing such characteristics can be interesting ways to encourage physical activity practice in the population.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Research and Study Group on Urban Environment & Health and the students who perfor-med the data collection.
Author contributions
Valenzuela ALEM, Santos ACB and Justina MDD participated in the article conception, data analysis and interpretation, and fi-nal text review. Kuhn TS participated in the data collection, data tabulation and final text review. Pazin J participated in the article conception, data collection and final text review. Rech CR partici-pated in the data analysis and interpretation, and final text review.
References
1. Lee I, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, Puska P, Blair SN, Katzmarzyk PT. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):219-29.
2. Jans MP, Proper KI, Hildebrandt VH. Sedentary behavior in dutch workers. Differences between occupations and business sectors. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33(6):450-4.
3. Turi BC, Codogno JS, Fernandes RA, Lynch KR, Kokubun E, Monteiro HL. Time trends in physical activity of adult users of the Brazilian national health system: 2010-2014. Longitudinal study. Sao Paulo Med J. 2017;135(4):369-75.
4. Yang L, Hu L, Hipp JA, Imm KR, Schutte R, Stubbs B, et al. Cross-sectional associations of active transport, employment status and objectively measured physical activity: analyses from the national health and nutrition examination Survey. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2018;72(9):764-9.
5. Sallis JF, Cervero RB, Ascher W, Henderson KA, Kraft MK, Kerr J. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Ann Rev Public Health. 2006;27(1):297–22.
6. Camargo DM, Ramírez PC, Quiroga V, Ríos P, Fermino RC, Sarmiento OL. Physical activity in public parks of high and low socioeconomic status in Colombia using observational methods. J Phys Act Health. 2018;15(8):581-91.
7. Sugiyama T, Leslie E, Giles-Corti B, Owen N. Associations of neighbourhood greenness with physical and mental health: do walking, social coherence and local social interaction explain the relationships? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62(5):9.
Quote this article as:
Valenzuela ALEM, Santos ACB, Justina MDD, Kuhn TS, Pazin J, Rech CR. Environmental factors to promote the use of a Public Park in adults. Rev Bras Ativ Fís Saúde. 2018;23:e0049. DOI: 10.12820/rbafs.23e0049
8. Sullivan WC, Chang C. Mental health and the built environment. in: Dannenberg AL, Frunkin H, Jackson RJ. Making healthy places. Washington: Island Press; 2011. p. 106–16.
9. McCormack GR, Rock M, Toohey AM, Hignell D. Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: a review of qualitative research. Health Place. 2010;16(4):712–26.
10. Fermino RC, Hallal PC, Reis RS. Frecuencia de uso de los parques y práctica de actividad física en adultos de Curitiba, Brazil. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2017;23(4):264–70.
11. Humpel N, Owen N, Leslie E. Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity: A review. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(3):188–99.
12. Lee RE, Mama SK, Adamus-Leach HJ, Soltero EG. Contribution of neighborhood income and access to quality physical activity resources to physical activity in ethnic minority women over time. Am J Health Promot. 2015;29(4):210–6.
13. Van Cauwenberg J, Cerin E, Timperio A, Salmon J, Deforche B, Veitch J. Park proximity, quality and recreational physical activity among mid-older aged adults: moderating effects of individual factors and area of residence. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:46.
14. Silva DAS, Petroski EL, Reis RS. Barreiras e facilitadores de atividades físicas em frequentadores de parques públicos. Motriz. 2009;15(2):219–27.
15. Ministério da Saúde. Protocolos do Sistema de Vigilância Alimentar e Nutricional. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2016.
16. Papas MA, Alberg AJ, Ewing R, Helzlsouer KJ, Gary TL, & Klassen, A. C. The built environment and obesity. Epidemiol Rev. 2007;29(1);129–43.
17. Kärmeniemi M, Lankila T, Ikäheimo T, Koivumaa-Honkanen H, Korpelainen R. The built environment as a determinant of physical activity: a systematic review of longitudinal studies and natural experiments. Ann Behav Med. 2018;52(3):239–51.
18. Hunter RF, Christian H, Veitch J, Astell-Burt T, Hipp JA, Schipperijn J. The impact of interventions to promote physical activity in urban green space: a systematic review and recommendations for future research. Soc Sci Med. 2015;124:246-56.
19. Cohen DA, McKenzie TL, Sehgal A, Williamson S, Golinelli
D, Lurie N. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(3):509–14.
20. Manta SW, Lopes AAS, Hino AAF, Benedetti TRB, Rech CR. Espaços públicos de lazer e estruturas para atividade física: estudo de observação sistemática do ambiente. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum. 2018;20(5):445-55.
21. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Florianópolis, SC. IBGE; 2010. [citado 2018 Jun 22]. Disponível em: url: https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas-novoportal/por-cidade-estado-estatisticas.html?t=destaques&c=4205407.
22. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Base de informações do Censo Demográfico: resultados do Universo por setor censitário. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE; 2010.
23. Reis RS, Nascimento JV, Petroski EL. Escala de auto-percepção do ambiente para a realização de atividades físicas. Rev Bras Ativ Fís Saúde. 2002;7(2):14–23.
24. Collet C, Chiaradia BM, Reis RS, Nascimento JV. Fatores determinantes para a realização de atividades físicas em parque urbano de Florianópolis. Rev Bras Ativ Fís Saúde. 2008;13(1):15–23.
25. Messa PTD, Fonseca SA, Nahas MV. Mediadores para a prática de atividade física de lazer em usuários do Parque de Coqueiros – Florianópolis, SC. Revista Catarinense de Educação Física. 2006;2(3):3.
26. Fermino RC, Reis RS, Hallal PC, Farias Junior JC. Perceived environment and public open space use: a study with adults from Curitiba, Brazil. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:35.
27. Santos MS, Hino AAF, Reis RS, Rodriguez-Añez CR. Prevalência de barreiras para a prática de atividade física em adolescentes. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2010;13(1):94–104.
28. Reis RS. Determinantes ambientais para a realização de atividades físicas nos parques urbanos de Curitiba: uma abordagem sócio-ecológica da percepção dos usuários [dissertação de mestrado]. Florianópolis: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina; 2001.
29. Eiras SB, Silva WHA, Souza DL, Vendrusculo R. Fatores de adesão e manutenção da prática de atividade física por parte de idosos. Rev Bras Ciências do Esporte. 2010;31(2):75–89.
Received: 30/07/2018 Approved: 09/02/2019
